CIT v. Puja Prints

Baijabai P. Mhatre, Thane vs. ITO WD 3(2), Kalyan

In the result, all appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharmaआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4226/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Pandurang G. Mhatre, Flat Vs. Ito Ward-3(2), Kalyan No.102/103, Narcheti, Beturkar Pada, Kalyan (W), District Thane- 411202 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aozpm 3751 M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4227/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Ravindra P. Mhatre, Flat Vs. Ito Ward-3(2), Kalyan No.102/103, Narcheti, Beturkar Pada, Kalyan (W), District Thane- 411202 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aoypm 0812 Q (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4228/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Anil P. Mhatre, Flat No.102/103, Vs. Ito Ward-3(2), Kalyan Narcheti, Beturkar Pada, Kalyan (W), District Thane-411202 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aoypm 0860 N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4229/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Smt. Baijabai P. Mhatre, Flat Vs. Ito Ward-3(2), Kalyan No.102/103, Narcheti, Beturkar Pada, Kalyan (W), District Thane- 411202 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Apkpm 7326 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

…The Id. AO prior to 01.07.2012 could not make a reference to the DVO u/s 55A when the value adopted by the assessee based on report of registered valuer was higher than FMV of land. Ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions :- 1. CIT -Vs- Puja Prints, 360 ITR 697 (Bom) (2014) 2. CIT -Vs- Daulal Mohta HUF, ITA No. 1031 of2008 dt. 22.09.2008 - Bombay High Court 3. ITA -Vs- Jyoti Construction Co., ITA No.2393/Muml2014 dt. 27.04.2016 - Hon. Members, "J" Bench, IT AT Mumbai 4. ITA -Vs- Rabinder H. Chhabra (HUF), ITA No.5511/Mum/2012 dt. 23.05.2014 - Hon. Members, "0" Bench, IT A T Mumbai 5. Hiaben Jayantilal S…

Anil P. Mhatre, Thane vs. ITO WD 3(2), Kalyan

In the result, all appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharmaआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4226/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Pandurang G. Mhatre, Flat Vs. Ito Ward-3(2), Kalyan No.102/103, Narcheti, Beturkar Pada, Kalyan (W), District Thane- 411202 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aozpm 3751 M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4227/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Ravindra P. Mhatre, Flat Vs. Ito Ward-3(2), Kalyan No.102/103, Narcheti, Beturkar Pada, Kalyan (W), District Thane- 411202 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aoypm 0812 Q (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4228/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Anil P. Mhatre, Flat No.102/103, Vs. Ito Ward-3(2), Kalyan Narcheti, Beturkar Pada, Kalyan (W), District Thane-411202 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aoypm 0860 N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4229/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Smt. Baijabai P. Mhatre, Flat Vs. Ito Ward-3(2), Kalyan No.102/103, Narcheti, Beturkar Pada, Kalyan (W), District Thane- 411202 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Apkpm 7326 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

…The Id. AO prior to 01.07.2012 could not make a reference to the DVO u/s 55A when the value adopted by the assessee based on report of registered valuer was higher than FMV of land. Ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions :- 1. CIT -Vs- Puja Prints, 360 ITR 697 (Bom) (2014) 2. CIT -Vs- Daulal Mohta HUF, ITA No. 1031 of2008 dt. 22.09.2008 - Bombay High Court 3. ITA -Vs- Jyoti Construction Co., ITA No.2393/Muml2014 dt. 27.04.2016 - Hon. Members, "J" Bench, IT AT Mumbai 4. ITA -Vs- Rabinder H. Chhabra (HUF), ITA No.5511/Mum/2012 dt. 23.05.2014 - Hon. Members, "0" Bench, IT A T Mumbai 5. Hiaben Jayantilal S…

Ravindra P. Mhatre, Thane vs. ITO WD 3(2), Kalyan

In the result, all appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharmaआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4226/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Pandurang G. Mhatre, Flat Vs. Ito Ward-3(2), Kalyan No.102/103, Narcheti, Beturkar Pada, Kalyan (W), District Thane- 411202 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aozpm 3751 M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4227/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Ravindra P. Mhatre, Flat Vs. Ito Ward-3(2), Kalyan No.102/103, Narcheti, Beturkar Pada, Kalyan (W), District Thane- 411202 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aoypm 0812 Q (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4228/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Anil P. Mhatre, Flat No.102/103, Vs. Ito Ward-3(2), Kalyan Narcheti, Beturkar Pada, Kalyan (W), District Thane-411202 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aoypm 0860 N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4229/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Smt. Baijabai P. Mhatre, Flat Vs. Ito Ward-3(2), Kalyan No.102/103, Narcheti, Beturkar Pada, Kalyan (W), District Thane- 411202 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Apkpm 7326 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

…The Id. AO prior to 01.07.2012 could not make a reference to the DVO u/s 55A when the value adopted by the assessee based on report of registered valuer was higher than FMV of land. Ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions :- 1. CIT -Vs- Puja Prints, 360 ITR 697 (Bom) (2014) 2. CIT -Vs- Daulal Mohta HUF, ITA No. 1031 of2008 dt. 22.09.2008 - Bombay High Court 3. ITA -Vs- Jyoti Construction Co., ITA No.2393/Muml2014 dt. 27.04.2016 - Hon. Members, "J" Bench, IT AT Mumbai 4. ITA -Vs- Rabinder H. Chhabra (HUF), ITA No.5511/Mum/2012 dt. 23.05.2014 - Hon. Members, "0" Bench, IT A T Mumbai 5. Hiaben Jayantilal S…

Pandurang G. Mhatre, Kalyan vs. ITO WD 3(2), Kalyan

In the result, all appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharmaआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4226/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Pandurang G. Mhatre, Flat Vs. Ito Ward-3(2), Kalyan No.102/103, Narcheti, Beturkar Pada, Kalyan (W), District Thane- 411202 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aozpm 3751 M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4227/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Ravindra P. Mhatre, Flat Vs. Ito Ward-3(2), Kalyan No.102/103, Narcheti, Beturkar Pada, Kalyan (W), District Thane- 411202 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aoypm 0812 Q (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4228/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Anil P. Mhatre, Flat No.102/103, Vs. Ito Ward-3(2), Kalyan Narcheti, Beturkar Pada, Kalyan (W), District Thane-411202 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aoypm 0860 N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4229/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Smt. Baijabai P. Mhatre, Flat Vs. Ito Ward-3(2), Kalyan No.102/103, Narcheti, Beturkar Pada, Kalyan (W), District Thane- 411202 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Apkpm 7326 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

…The Id. AO prior to 01.07.2012 could not make a reference to the DVO u/s 55A when the value adopted by the assessee based on report of registered valuer was higher than FMV of land. Ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions :- 1. CIT -Vs- Puja Prints, 360 ITR 697 (Bom) (2014) 2. CIT -Vs- Daulal Mohta HUF, ITA No. 1031 of2008 dt. 22.09.2008 - Bombay High Court 3. ITA -Vs- Jyoti Construction Co., ITA No.2393/Muml2014 dt. 27.04.2016 - Hon. Members, "J" Bench, IT AT Mumbai 4. ITA -Vs- Rabinder H. Chhabra (HUF), ITA No.5511/Mum/2012 dt. 23.05.2014 - Hon. Members, "0" Bench, IT A T Mumbai 5. Hiaben Jayantilal S…

Shubha Vichare, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1124/Mum/2013 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Smt.Shubha Vichare बिाम/ Income Tax Officer, No.7, Varuna Defence Office Ward 19(2)(4), Vs. Society, Linking Road, Mumbai. Santacruz (W) Mumbai-400054 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan. :Adtpv4719M अपीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms.Tasneem Varawala प्रत्यथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri Pramod Nikalje सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.112015 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :13.1.2016 O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm

…t, the AO has no power to refer the matter of valuation to the DVO when the valuation adopted by the assessee is equal or more than the fair market value. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the following case law: a) CIT V/s Puja Prints (2014)360 ITR 697 (Bom) b) CIT V/s Daulal Mohta HUF, ITA No.1031 of 2008 c) DCIT V/s Chaturbhuj Vallabhdas (HUF) (2011) 130 ITD 230 d) Smt Krishnabai Tingre V/s ITO (2006) 101 ITD 317 (Pune) e) Ms.Rubab M Kazerani V/s JCIT (2004) 91 ITD 429 f) Vijaykumar M Shah V DCIT (2010) 2 ITR 116 g) Smt Amiya Bala Paul V CIT (2003) 262 ITR 407. He therefore prayed that the lo…

Samira Merchant, Mumbai vs. I.T.O.-19(3)(4)`, Mumbai

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No.1804/Mum/2011 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2003-04 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No.5797/Mum/2012 िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2005-06 वष" Mrs. Samira Merchant Income Tax Officer-19(3)-4 Room No.304, 3Rd Floor, Flat No.1001/1002 Vastu Bandra, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug B.J. Road/Pereira Road Parel,Mumbai-400 012. Bandra (W),Mumbai-400 050. Pan:Aczpm 1844 M (अपीलाथ" /Assessee ) (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर सेसेसेसे/Assessee By िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर : Shri Satish R. Mody राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By :Sh. Sachidanand Dubey-Dr सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" सुनवाई क" क" तारीख क" तारीख तारीख / Date Of Hearing :18- 11 -2015 तारीख घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2016 आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 28.01.11And 18.6.12 Of Cit(A)-30 The Assessee Has Filed Appeals For The Above Mentioned Two Assessment Years.The Dates Of Filing Of Returns, Returned Incomes Dates Of Asst Order & Assessed Income Can Be Summarised As Under :- A.Y. Roi Filed On Returned Income(Rs.) Assessment Dt. Assessed Income (Rs.) 2003-04 22.09.2003 78,625/- 29.08.2008 37,36,548/- 2005-06 31.08.2005 1,00,248/- 19.12.2007 21,64,290/-

…ed the matter to the AVO for determining the FMV, that the value shown by the registered valuer was more than the purchase price, that the reference to the AVO and resultant addition was against the provision of the Act .He referred to the case of Puja Prints(360 ITR 697). Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the FAA. 2.3.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We find that the plots of land were purchased in 1979, that they were sold in the year under appeal, that the assessee had hired the services of a registered valuer for determining the FMV as on 1.4.81, tha…

Pfizer Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Pfizer Limited, Acit Range 8(2), Patel Estate, Off S.V. Rd. Aayakar Bahwan, बनाम/ Jogeshwari (W), M.K. Marg, Vs. Mumba-400102 Mumbai- (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp3334M

…gly not applicable to the year under consideration i.e. AY 2007-08. 9.7. Lastly, it was submitted that legal position was well settled on this issue. Our attention was invited to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Puja Prints, 360 ITR 697 (Bombay). In this decision, Hon'ble Bombay High Court has, after considering the said amendment, held that if a report of a registered valuer has been taken by the assessee, then the provisions of section 55A(a) only are applicable and section 55A(b) has no application, and further if the value determined by the DVO is lower that than claimed by…